Bruh I am being cooked

Good God, this question type is by far the worst and it's killing me.

@Sunday_Blues13 honestly, I am just letting this one slide, I do not understand a thing lol.

@ibrahem aljumaily We both crashing out man lol, cause I looked at this question and yelled at my screen.

@Courtney Pierce this question type, is one I understand deeply. jimmy_faith17 is my IG handle, reach out and I can actually go more into detail how I mastered this question type.

@legallyhaya so from what I got, when it comes to the most supported questions, we have to see what the stimulus infers the most or is the most supported, like logically when I saw the question about toddlers biting adults, I had to think okay if I was a toddler, I would view the adult as a problem, hence the choice for question A. The foundation of the stimulus is also going to help a lot, the moment you get it, the choice becomes very easy to see.

@rickyrivas94 we have to remember that we CANNOT assume. The passage here did not state that the patients did not know about this, however we have to stay in the bounds of the stimulus and infer if it strongly supports the answer.

If Troy was born in Florida, then he is American. Troy was born in America, therefore he is American

@esimone98 use the same strategy you did as the modifiers. Like always be on the lookout to see if anything will be referenced. For example, let's use this statement "The blue Tiger loves climbing on the tall tree in the zoo in the city of Michigan". Now in this sentence you can definitely tell what is modifying what, but let's change the statement a-bit to this, "The blue Tiger that loves climbing on the tall tree in the zoo in the city of Michigan", in this second example, the word that is a referential which is referencing the blue tiger "THAT" loves climbing, it more like an explanation of what was initially introduced to us so take a good look at Q5, it explained about the willingness, but when you continue the sentence, you intuitively know what is being talked about you already saw the modifiers in the first sentence and you then understand what is going on and what is being explained is the "willingness to tell the funny joke", so the words "this willingness references the easy willingness to tell funny stories or jokes about oneself is the surest mark of supreme self-confidence. Always look out for the pronouns in these statements, I hope I explained in easier.

Wait I think I get it now. The mistake we might all be making, is still thinking in the terms of the real world. Now the argument before stated this "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people", since the entire concept of the LSAT is being a persuasive argument and not explicitly relying on reality, I can still ask what if the tiger is not a mammal? Just right there, I weakened the argument in terms of the LSAT and not reality, now let's go further. After they include the assumptions that Tigers are mammals, that aggressiveness causes injuries, therefore not all mammals can be pets, it strengthens the argument yes, however, still makes it weak at the same time. I can even include another assumption, but dogs are kind so why is every mammal not suitable? contrary to the Disney argument which explicitly gave us 2 choices either he proportionated the goats or had to prostate through the alter, we had no links to assume anything else, making is a stronger argument. This is making me feel like I am going crazy

Now I am confused. The previous lessons stated about the form of validity and not to think about the true reality. Now at first, I understood on why the tiger argument, was not that strong. since it stated tigers are aggressive, so not every mammal is suitable to be a pet. the word every generalizes every pet, however we only had one example which was a tiger, and someone would ask, well what about a hamster or a dog, which are mammals as well, now that weakens the argument. However, I am confused how including the assumption that tigers are mammals, strengthens the argument when in fact just explicitly generalizes mammals as a whole to not be suitable as pets?

The Disney argument is the strongest due to the direct links of the premises supporting the conclusions, please do remember to not overthink it but rather what is in the texts.

Teacher: The principal found his office trashed. Sam and Mickey always trash offices when they are frustrated. Sam and Mickey were frustrated with the principal last week, thus Sam and Mickey trashed the principal's office.

So, the word but does not always explicitly mean a conclusion, however the word "thus" always indicates a conclusion? Which conclusion indicators always change their form then?

So, from what I gathered in this topic, we have to concentrate on the argument itself and to not think about the real reality, but rather to think about the concept of the argument itself reality.

@Lawlow I am quite confused. From the way I read this and watched the video, the conclusion is always supported by the premise (pause), let me not use the word "ALWAYS", but usually. If a conclusion claim supports a premise, wouldn't that previous be a sub-conclusion since it would signify the presence of the main conclusion? I do not know if I am making sense.

@AbigailTeruya I am also thinking of writing them in january

@AbigailTeruya is there actually still time to go to law school if we actually write the LSATs in January?

@DavidFinkelstein why do I feel you served in the military with this statement lol

God speed everyone. LET US NOT LET FEAR TAKE CONTROL!!